In national elections, countries employing proportional voting methods
have significantly higher voter turnout than countries with
winner-take-all election systems. This has led leading political
scientists like Seymour Martin Lipset and Walter Dean Burnham to the
conclusion that proportional voting systems encourage greater voter
participation. Turnout is higher because of voters' increased choice
and ability to elect candidates of choice.

To study how this proposition translates to local elections, I compared
voter turnout in Cambridge, Massachusetts -- the only city in the
United States to use preference voting for all municipal elections --
to turnout in three other Massachusetts cities with similar
demographics and types of municipal elections: Somerville, Medford and
Worcester. The results support the idea that proportional voting tends
to encourage greater voter participation.

The main result showed that Cambridge had the "least decline" in both
voter turnout and voter registration during a time when voter turnout
has fallen precipitously in all Massachusetts and U.S. elections.

Cambridge ended the study about 10 percentage points above the other 3
cities despite the fact that all other 3 cities had strong mayors
compared to Cambridge's Plan E city manager form of government and that
turnout is ordinarily higher in municipal elections with mayoral
contests.

During the early part of the study, voter turnout was similar in all
four cities -- in part due to strong Democratic, ethnic, patronage
political participation structures in all four cities typical of
Massachusetts politics at the time. In the 1970s, as political parties
and traditional "machine" politics declined, turnout fell sharply in
the other 3 cities (although less quickly in one city, Somerville,
because of some strongly contested mayoral races in the 1970s).

Background on Cities:Form of Government: For most of the period studied, Cambridge, Medford
and Worcester used a city manager/city council form of government;
Medford and Worcester changed to a stronger mayor in 1987. Somerville
had a strong mayor and a city council elected from districts and
at-large.

Voter Turnout in4 Massachusetts Cities(Percent of Registered Voters)

Chart 1Average Turnout Over 3 Decades

1961-1969

1971-1979

1981-1993

Cambridge

67%

59%

54%

Somerville

68%

64%

46%

Medford

59%

55%

44%

Worcester

64%

51%

45%

Chart 2Decline in Registered VotersBetween the years 1961 and 1991

1961

1991

Decline

Cambridge

49,387

44,794

9.3%

Somerville

47,328

39,546

16.4%

Medford

35,232

31,698

10.0%

Worcester

95,062

69,583

26.8%

Demographics: Cambridge and Somerville are the most similar of
the four cities. Medford is slighter higher income and Worcester has
become, during the period, slightly lower income.

Impact of Elected Mayor: Elections for a strong mayor generally
produce more turnout than an election for a city council, especially in
a competitive mayoral election. The figures in this study support this.
In Somerville the turnout averaged 69% in the 5 elections where new
mayors were elected between 1961-1981. Worcester and Medford both had a
more than 10% boost in turnout in 1987, the first year they both had a
popularly elected mayor, though turnout declined afterwards.

The main result showed that Cambridge had the "least decline" in both
voter turnout and voter registration during a time when voter turnout
has fallen precipitously in all Massachusetts and U.S. elections.

Political History: Cambridge, Somerville and Worcester all had
strong ethnic political patronage machines in the 1950s through the
1970s. During the 1970s, like elsewhere, these machines went into
decline. At least one factor in this decline was simply the changing
demographics, as each city received an increasing number of racial
minorities and new immigrants. These patronage and ethnic based
political networks likely played a positive role in voter turnout in
the 1950s and 1960s.

Cambridge vs. SomervilleSomerville's strong mayor elections helped produce marginally higher
turnouts than Cambridge's weak mayor elections in the early part of the
study from 1955-1981: Somerville's average was about 67% and
Cambridge's about 64%. Somerville's turnout was especially high when a
new mayor was elected, as noted above.

Cambridge moved ahead of Somerville in the 1981-1993 period with an
average turnout of 54% compared to a 46% average for Somerville. The
question, then, is what factors made Cambridge's turnout competitive
with Somerville in the early part of the study and move well ahead in
the last 7 elections -- even though Somerville has a turnout advantage
in its strong mayor form of government. Cambridge's preference voting
system almost certainly was a factor.

Cambridge vs. Medford and WorcesterSince 1960, Cambridge's turnouts have been higher than those of Medford
and Worcester, two cities with similar demographics and forms of
government. The gap has been increasing.

The sustained and quantitatively higher difference gives clearer
evidence that Cambridge's preference voting system gives it an
advantage. The difference cannot be explained in terms of demographic
factors because Medford voters have remained wealthier. Also, as
Medford's voting in even-year federal elections is more consistently
similar to that of Cambridge, greater voter apathy cannot be considered
a factor either.

This analysis is only preliminary and in part demonstrates how
difficult it is to isolate one factor in the decline of voter turnout
since the 1960s. However, the evidence certainly points to preference
voting providing more of an incentive for voters to participate than
plurality elections.

George Pillsbury is a Board member of The Center for Voting and
Democracy. He is a 1994 graduate of the John F. Kennedy School of
Government, where this article was written.

In Detroit, there have been three mayors in the past two years and the current one has come under scrutiny. Perhaps a system like instant runoff voting will help bring political stability to motor city.